About your Search

20130126
20130203
STATION
CSPAN 12
CSPAN2 12
MSNBC 5
MSNBCW 5
KQED (PBS) 4
CNN 2
CNNW 2
KRCB (PBS) 2
KTVU (FOX) 2
WETA 2
WJZ (CBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 52
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 52 (some duplicates have been removed)
now. nato troops are starting to withdraw. what kind of country are they leaving behind? we're in afghanistan and he sent us this report. >> the afghan capital of kabul is a bustling city. 100,000 troops are anywhere to be seen. they're starting to leave. he tells me afghanistan is a different place from when they arrived 11 years ago. it is remarkable how things have progressed. health care is very different to what it was. education has moved on hugely. i think in terms of the progress to the things we would understand, and there has been a momentum. it has progressed to an extraordinary way. >> the taliban had not gone away. soon afghan security forces will have to fight them on their own. the man who led the intelligence war for most of the last 10 years said the attacks are set to get worse. >> it reduces this. the taliban are going to change their tactics. they are going to modify their strategy. there are going to do more and more spectacular attacks. >> like this one on our first morning in cobble, a triple suicide bombing. officials told us on average there are four
of the speeches he made recently calculated that nato and the fact that the experience in afghanistan is not over yet, but hasn't been a terrifically happy one for nato and not might serve as lead to a which we just don't have the will anymore, the intention to stay on the same scale before, particularly the exception that her partners are are now pulling away. how do you think will really keep nato going? to sustain nato and keep it relevant given her budgetary restrictions? >> in intervening event poses a threat. we thought a little research and said nato the libya situation, where clearly the united states is not going to take the lead, was going to supply reconnaissance, intelligence, surveillance and a little bit of backup. either nato getting together going forward are not. the threat of you stabilize libya, consequences of that for southern europe, the history with european presence they are as a precipitating event. but i think it's going to take something similar to that, one issue that potentially could be that is the whole situation of their weapons things in the fact that europe would
like nato. nato now has 26, 27 members. is a totally different thing. those are areas i am not so sure the security council of the un wouldn't be better off doing large things or have some variations. nato is always seeing significant cracks, afghanistan is not the only test, but quite frankly half of the soviet union imploded in 1989. we asked, nato members asked each other, asked the institution if there was still a requirement for nato because the soviet tanks were no longer a threat rolling across the boulder gap in germany so it could be -- why do we need it? i think what it is about is the next president should work with our friends and allies in trying to restructure some of these institutions to make the relevant to the twenty-first century, make the relevant to these new challenges, give you another example, foreign aid. bob gates's speaking kansas state, what bob gates was talking about was not just foreign aid, wasn't just talking about aid programs, sacks of sugar. what he was talking about, this is twenty-first century thinking, investment in stability and security, invest
and interest in maintaining a certain level of insurgency to restart from u.s., nato allies. i think it's possible rationalist explanation that the coziness of a venture of having comprehensive strategy to tackle all of their hands -- militancy in those tribal areas and the rest of the country. it comes to money, manpower and material and i outweigh the costs over the last 10 years in the chapter. because of these cars since 2007 they shaped the anticipation of future costs and fears about future might hold should they go whole hog into fata in future operations. it's worth paying attention to it pakistan says the pakistan military state leaders say about the cost they weren't. we are tuned to this. it is striking when there's new reports say they have lost about two brigades of manpower from their military and the operational equivalent of two divisions, which is dramatic. this is based on estimations of the retreating costs, time, material costs. but that was pretty significant. for a military that has a hostel at eastern border, this is not a significant cost or send a talked about a
be ready to take the lead in the war with the taliban. nato troops will begin scaling back their involvement in preparation for leaving the country at the end of 2014. >> there is a consideration for endearing presence here. we will continue that work in the aftermath of 2014. at the end of 2014 i'm confident they can defend this country and the people. >> u.s. troops have been in afghanistan for 11 years. >>> time now 5:14. two people with two very different gun policy agendas will testify on capitol hill before a senate committee. as kyla campbell reports from our washington, d.c. newsroom the nra is ready to fight. >> reporter: the nra executive director is going before the senate in its first hearing on gun violence since the deadly school shoot newtown. wayne lap area is the new defender of gun rights. he will talk about how law- abiding gun owners should not -- and mark kelly the former congresswoman of gabby giffords. the couple is pushing for gun control through an organization they recently started. called americans for responsible solutions. >> reporter: the nra w
what to do with libya that would bring an unprecedented coalition between arab and nato countries, or whether it was just looking down the road at how we were doing diplomacy and introducing new tools into that mix, it was a very different time than ten, 20, 30, 40 years ago. i've kidded our mutual friend, henry kissinger, think how impossible it would have been for him to sneak off to china in the age of cell phones, twitter, facebook, everything else. it is a time that is testing us. i think we're passing the test, and quite comfortably, but the whole world scene is one now that is so quickly changing and challenging us that, you know, the traditional mode of doing diplomacy is not enough for what we face. >> what do you think didn't go well, what went wrong? >> well, benghazi went wrong. you know, that was a terrible example of trying to get the right balance of being in a threatening place or not being there, looking after american interests, which meant keeping an eye on the militants and extremists who we knew were reconstituting themselves in eastern libya, trying to track
admired in the senate. i worked with him closely when i was an ambassador to n.a.t.o. i found him to always be very fair and very thoughtful. we have a very tough challenge with iran. iran is resisting negotiations. they won't even agree to show up at the p-5 negotiations with the the other countries. if they don't show up with the negotiations it will be give for the obama administration to go not go down that use of force which no one wants to go down. it's important that we send a tough message to iran and that is that the use of force is on the table unless they negotiate fairly. i'm with the president of wanting to negotiate with diplomacy. we need an united team in washington, so i hope he's confirmed. i hope he's confirmed expeditiously in the senate. >> jennifer: we're all hoping that. we are hoping to send a strong message and a strong team to represent us across the world. we thank you for coming to the war room. former u.s. ambassador nicholas burns. coming up, congress gets to pick it's spots in dealing with gun violence. unfortunately, community leaders on the front l
did a number of things >> including working at -- number of things, including working at nato headquarters. he was an advisor to four president. -- presidents. he led the afghanistan-pakistan review. bruce has written two books in his time here. a third is about to come out. the first two were about al qaeda. the search for al qaeda and the deadly embrace. the new book coming out next month is "avoiding armageddon." it is about the us -- pakistan -- u.s.-pakistan relationship. general stanley mcchrystal spent 34 years in the new oteri. he was -- in the military. he was the director of the joint staff. in military circles, this five- year. of -- five-year period of joint special operations command is what makes them memorable and historic. the reality is that he has done more to carry the fight to al qaeda since 2001 than any other person in this department, possibly in the country. after that, bob gates got up, and the secretary of defense called him one of the finest men at arms this country as ever produced, then continued over the past decade, no single american has inflict
. before he could come in and torched and gauzy and kill all the rebels we and our nato allies intervened to stop that. no, in the case of syria we have not intervened, but certainly other outside powers have. the rebels of been able to get support, for example, from the gulf states which keeps them from being simply swept off -- swept off the board. in turn he gets support from a run. and the moment the war is more less stalemated because both sides have some degree of support, but it is not overwhelming. very unpopular, but the insurgents have not been able to push him out of the weight. but -- and this goes back to a point was making earlier about the incredible importance of legitimacy. i would say for most syrians he lacks legitimacy, especially for the senate majority of the country because he is part of a minority. however, he does have support in the community. he does have support among some of the other minorities because they're afraid of what would happen if their work to take over. he is able to cling to power with a small degree of legitimacy left. the rebels, in turn, are a
state or not, do they attack u.s./nato forces in afghanistan or not, do they take direction from mullah omar or not? and a very interesting way of capturing the topology of the different taliban groups. to brian's right is ken ballen who's one of the leading pollsters in the muslim world. he helped us with a poll, the first poll that really looked at the political, sensitive political questions in the federally-administered tribal regions. obviously, polling is pretty tricky for all sorts of obvious reasons. we had a very good partner on the ground called camp. ken helped us really think about how to make this poll a truly scientific poll. he will explain some of the findings of that poll. he'll also, he's written a book "terrorists in love," which is a almost anthropological account of jihadis and why they join certain groups, and he'll also talk a little bit about what he learned about mullah omar in the process of writing that book. to the right of ken ballen is colonel tomlin. who served on admiral mullen's staff. he has written, i think, an absolutely fascinating chapter essentiall
and thinking about syria, think about the nato patriot missiles that are now there. he's going to be thinking about what the diplomatic and assistance side is of what is going on in mali which he will know quite well because the u.s. has been trying to support the emergence of a democratic government there for well over a decade. so those two crises are both great examples of where, as senator kerry, he traveled the world. he met with leaders. so the challenge that he has is to go from being someone who's able to drop in and then follow in an oversight role to being the person who really has to make the decisions and who has to say, you know, if mali is a priority, egypt is a priority, turkey is a priority, the conflict between china, japan, and south korea is a worry, the worry about a north korean nuclear test is a priority. we could go on and on. a secretary of state's job really is to keep all those balls in the air so, frankly, we're on tv talking about them as little as possible. >> right. you know, michael, the other thing that strikes me that now-secretary kerry is going to have to de
organization. it embraces a marxist leninist ideology. it is anti-imperialist, anti-u.s. and anti-nato for that matter. it has attacked u.s. interests and facilities during and before and after the first gulf war. but they hadn't done anything for a long time. so today is the first after, you know, a long break that they had attacked. u.s. embassy here in ankara. >> to you do we know how clear the evidence is that points to them? and i ask this because i've seen some terrorism experts here in the u.s. questioning about whether the turkish government has rushed to judgement in pinpointing this group, particularly because there are any number of groups operating in turky, capable of such violence. >> true there are a number of terrorist organizations from, you know, extremist leftist to kurdish to islamist terrorist organizations operating in turkey. i wouldn't go into speculating further than what the turkish authorities have provided to the turkish media. and we're hoping that the coming days we are going to have more details as to why this happened and why, whoever targeted the u.s. e
-imperialist anti-u.s. and anti-nato for that matter. it has attacked u.s. interests and facilities during and before and after the first gulf war. but they hadn't done anything for a long time. so today is the first after you know a long break that they had attacked. u.s. embassy here in ankara. >> to you do we know how clear the evidence is that points to them? and i ask this because i've seen some terrorism experts here in the u.s. questioning about whether the turkish government has rushed to judgement in pinpointing this group particularly because there are any number of groups operating in turky capable of such violence. >> true there are a number of terrorist organizations from, you know extremist leftist to kurdish to islamist terrorist organizations operating in turkey. i wouldn't go into speculating further than what the turkish authorities have provided to the turkish media. and we're hoping that the coming days we are going to have more details as to why this happened and why whoever targeted the u.s. embassy today had done so we don't know really much detail tonight. >> tulin
closely, closely with our lo longtime allies of nato and our friends and with allies and p t partners and friends in other regions of the world. at the same time we will continue to focus on challenges in the middle east and north africa where we have clear national interests. rather as recognition the united states has been and always will be a pacific power. in the asian pacific power it is increasingly vital to america's security and economic interests. that's why we must become even more engage d in the region ove the incoming years. doing all this and much more will require smart and strategic budget decisions. i have made it clear i share leon panetta's and our service chief's serious concerns about the impact sequestration would have on our armed forces. and as someone who has run businesses, i know that the uncertainty and turbulence of the current budget climate makes it much more difficult to manage the pentagon's resources and our national security. if confirmed, i'm committed to effectively and efficiently using every single taxpayer dollar the right way to maintain the st
of the nato intervention. as someone who's studied this region and i have to say i was reading your congressional testimony about north africa yesterday, it's incredibly prophetic, you've gone before congress many times, how much do you see the intervention in libya as a moment that pushed us toward these effects we're now seeing? >> i think it did push us entirely. the question for me was, was it intended, was it ignored? because i think where i differ with some people, we have to remember what happened before the intervention. we have to remember that they requested intervention. we have to remember that gadhafi was threatening to hand down all the people in the streets. we also have to remember that at that time the revolution had started in tunisia and it had jumped to egypt and so it seemed to me that if you have a choice between not allowing people to be mowed down in the streets, you do that. now the link i see with other places is once you intervene, probably the intervention is always easy, it is the aftermath. >> that's what we learned. >> and i think the question that i h
to the parliamentarians of nato. these parliamentarians were very supportive of american drone policy and many of the nato countries are developing their own programs. i asked in english baroness, what will she say when china or iran vaporizes someone on the london bridge because they believe they are a threat to their country? what would you possibly say to object when the argument for drones that we now have the authority to take out anyone or anything in other countries that threaten us? it is anathema under international law. after world war two, we developed an international law that developed stability where countries have to take steps before they go to war. they cannot act unilaterally. the obama and bush administrations have torn that structure down. what is left is the state of nature. the american government that played such a key role in developing this international law is returning the world to a state of nature where the strongest country does whatever it wants. you have to ask yourself -- what happens when we are no longer the strongest country? what happens when there is another country t
working at the nsc on detail and nato headquarters, the middle east and the pentagon. pentagon. he was adviser to four presidents, president obama asked them to lead his afghanistan-pakistan paula's review in early 2009, and do that for a couple of months before apple first returning to brookings. bruce has written two books in the time has been a, a third is about to come out and i will mention that in the second of the first two were about al qaeda and then about the is pakistan relationship. so the search for al qaeda, the deadly embrace, his new book coming out next month is avoiding armageddon. it's a story by the u.s.-india pakistan relationship and crisis management over the last half-century or so. general stan mcchrystal is a 1976 graduate of west point, spent 34 years in u.s. army, retiring as a four-star general the summer 2010. he has been command in afghanistan. use the correct of the joint staff but perhaps the military circles most of all as i mentioned this five year period at joint special operations command makes a memorable and historic. general casey at his reti
the world bank and nato that protected our interest and benefited people and nations around the world. yet it is undeniable that a handful of major powers did end up controlling those institutions, setting norms and shaping international affairs. now two decades after the end of the cold war, we faced a different world. more countries than ever have a voice in global debates. we see more paths to power opening up as nations gain influence to the strength of their economies rather than their militaries are going political and technological changes are empowering nonstate actors, like active this, corporations and terrorist networks. at the same time, we face challenges from financial contagion to climate change to human and wildlife trafficking that spill across borders and defy unilateral solutions. as president obama has said, the old post-war architecture is crumbling under the weight of new threats. so the geometry of global power has become more distributed and diffused as the challenges we face have become more complex and crosscutting. so the question we ask ourselves every day is, w
that this is a peacekeeping role for nato. that is what that was all about. >> my time has expired. i would like to ask you one more question. i understand you made a statement indicating that there is no justification for palestinian suicide bombers. but that there's also no justification for israel to "keep palestinians caged up like animals." did you say that and, if so, do you stand by that today? >> well, i said it. and remember the context for when i said it. >> do you believe today that israel keeps palestinians caged up like animals? >> if i had an opportunity to edit that, i would like to go back. i said many things over many years. it was a larger context. the frustration and what is happening that is not in israel's interest, to find ways to find peace and security to israel. if i had a chance to go back and edit it, i would. i regret having used those words. >> thank you. >> senator lee. senator kane. >> it was good to see with my dear friend senator warner, a decorated navy and marine veteran from world war ii and korean war, a longtime member of this committee. it was good to see him here. he
chiefly the u.n., the imf the world bank and nato that protected our interests, defending universal values and benefited peoples and nations around the world. yet it is undeniable that a handful of major powers did end up controlling those institutions combat setting norms and shaping international affairs. now two decades after the end of the cold war, we faced a different world. more countries than ever have a voice in global debate. we see more passed power opening up as nations gain influence through the strength of their economies rather than their military and political and technological changes are empowering nonstate actors like activists, corporations and terrorist networks. at the same time we face challenges from financial contagion to climate change to human and wildlife trafficking that defy unilateral solutions. as president obama's said, the old post-war architecture is crumbling under the weight of new threats. said the geometry of global power has become more distributed and diffused as the challenges we face have become more complex and crosscutting. so the question we as
including working at the n.s.c. on detail, at nato headquarters, brought at the middle east and the pentagon. he was advisor to four presidents, president obama asked him to lead his afghanistan-pakistan policy review in early 2009 and he did that for a couple of months before happily, for us, returning to brookings. bruce has written already two books in the time he's been here, actually a third is about to come out, i'll mention that in just a second, but the first two were about al qaeda and then about the u.s.-pakistan relationship "the deadly embrace." . his new book, coming out next month is "avoiding armageddon" and it's the story about the u.s.-india-pakistan relationship and crisis management over the last half century or so. general stan mcchrystal is a 1976 graduate of west point. spent 34 years in the u.s. army. retiring as a four-star general in the summer of 2010. he has been commander in afghanistan. he was the director of the joint staff. but perhaps in military circles, most of all, as i mentioned, this five-year period at joint special operations command makes him memorable
lended to this. she's been one of the driving forces behind nato's no-fly zone over libya in order to prevent qadhafi from massacring his own people. and through deft diplomacy, she has slowly opened burma to the outside world. she's encouraging them to free political prisoners, hold parliamentary elections and finally permit foreign investment. and it's happening before our eyes. and, of course, she has taken special interest in the poorest nation in the western hemisphe hemisphere, an island nation right off of the east coast of the united states, less than an hour and a half flight time from miami. that's the island of haiti. the island nation of haiti on what is an island that christopher columbus was expected to have been the island that he landed, hispaniola now encompassing haiti and the dominican republic. and she has made haiti one of the top foreign policy projects, helping the impoverished island build back better after the devastating earthquake that killed over a quarter million people. in no small measure has her husband -- president clinton -- been a part of that att
that it was going to participate in a nato exercise to essentially dismantle the gadhafi regime in libya, i knew even as that decision was going to be taken, that there would be consequences throughout the sahel. the reason being that gadhafi provided a regime of stability in the sahel that was provided by his provision of direct economic benefits to the region, not only in terms of investment, but also in terms of direct transfers of moneys to the region. he was predictable upon his demise, not only would economic benefits be removed, but toureg soldiers in his islamic region would no longer be on the payroll, and no longer being in the payroll, they would then have to return to the countries of origin, primarily northern niger because they were no longer emerging employed. in the context of the demise, two arms depots were made available in tripoli, and heavy armorments were lewded from those depots and fell into the hands of those who would subsequently constitute and move forward with some secular resistant fighters in the north. that was the first point. the second point that we need to exa
.s. troops and nato forces to afghanistan, but is perpetual war finally over? maybe. the president favors a smaller and leaner military, and one whose limited size could likely discourage international engagements and he seems eager to refocus the troops away from the battles in the mideast and towards the cooler and maybe even cold engagement of the global balance with asia, and it is not clear that the president can end a perpetual state of war, but now is a good time to ask what a more peaceful world would look like. at the table is retired colonel john jacob, and editor and writer katrina vanden houvel and cloeby angyal and also welcoming in our new panelist. >> there was supposed to be the peace dividend at the end of the cold war, but i have given up on thinking about the end of war. >> well, president obama would like to find a different engagement with the world, and that means nation building at home, but even while he spokes those glorious words, we are at perpetual war. the largest problem is that as you step back and ask why is global war the appropriate framework for combatti
the lead in the war with the taliban. nato troops will start to scale back their involvement. >> there's consideration for an enduring presence here which will be to train, advice and assist. we'll continue that work in the aftermath of 2014. at the end of 2014, i'm confident the afghan national security forces can defend this country and the people. >> u.s. troops have been in afghanistan for 11 years. >>> time now, 7:17. happening right now in washington, d.c., the senate's first hearing on gun violence since the deadly school shooting in newtown, connecticut. something dramatic just happened. former congresswoman gabby giffords shock at the hearing -- smoke a the hearing calling for -- spoke at the hearing calling for lawmakers to do something. kyla campbell reports from our washington, d.c. newsroom. >> reporter: hi, dave. gabrielle giffords just spoke. it was very brief. we're gonna take a look at the hearing. gab -- gabrielle giffords stepped away from her my my row phone. five people are scheduled to testifying including mark kelly. giffords and kelly have been pushing for tight
's border? who secures israel's border? it has been suggested that this is a peacekeeping role for nato. that is what that was all about. >> my time has expired. i would like to ask you one more question. i understand you may be statement indicating that there is no justification for palestinian suicide bombers. but that there's also no justification for israel to "keep palestinians caged up like animals." did you say that and, if so, do you stand by that today? >> well, i said it. and remember the context for when i said it. >> do you believe today that israel kids palestinians caged up like animals? >> if i had in a party to edit that, i would like to go bad -- and -- if i had an opportunity to edit that, i would like to go back. i said many things over many years. it was a larger context. the frustration and what is happening that is not in israel's interest, to find ways to find peace and security to israel. if i had a chance to go back and ended it, i would. i regret having used those words. >> thank you. >> senator lee. senator kane. >> it was good to see with my dear friend senat
for the u.n., world bank, and nato that defended universal values and benefited peoples and nations around the world. a handful of major powers did end up controlling those institutions and shaping international affairs. two decades after the end of the cold war, we face a different war. more countries than ever have a voice in global debate. nations gain influence through the strength of their economies rather than their militaries. nine state actors are empowered. we faced challenges from financial contagion to climate change to human and wildlife trafficking that spill across borders and the fight unilateral solutions. the old postwar architecture is crumbling under the weight of new threats. the geometry has become more distributed and defused as the challenges we face have become more complex and crosscutting. the question we ask every day is what does this mean for america? how can we invents our interests and also appalled a just rule based international order, a system that does provide clearer rules of the road to fair labor standards. we have to be smart about how we use our powe
.n., the i.m.f., the world bank and nato, that benefited peoples and nation around the world but it is undeniable that a handful of major powers did end up controlling those institutions, setting norms and shaping international affairs. now, two decades after the end of the cold war, we face a different world. more countries than ever have a voice in global debates. we see more paths to power opening up as nations gain influence through the strength of their economies rather than their militaries and political and technological changes are empowering non-state actors like activists, corporations and terrorist networks. at the same time, we face challenges from financial contagion to climate change to human and wildlife trafficking that's still across borders and defy unilateral solutions. has said, thebama old post-war architecture is crumbling under the weight of new threats, so the geometry of global power has become more distributed and diffuse as the challenges we face have become more complex and cross-cutting. so the question we ask ourselves every day is what does this
as nato took the mission, the mission evolved into something different. but it is important to remember how it started. it is absolutely, i think, a fair question to say why did you act in libya in this circumstance under the doctrine, if you will, or the principle, if you will, of the responsibility to protect noncombat taxes -- b combat taxes, why did you choose to do that in libya and not choose -- or choose to not do that in other places? each circumstance, of course, is significantly different. and it has to be measured on its own merits. it also addresses, i think, the limits of power. military power does not solve all problems. and importantly in libya, there was aup security council resolution -- a u.n. security council resolution that called for this mission and authorized all available means. in syria there is no such security council resolution that would, that would provide the legal underpinning for an operation in syria similar to what was conducted in libya. so it's a great question, but there are significant differences, i think. i should caveat all of that by reminding
the french from being able to come into a country. they need to be able to stop nato from coming into countries on the continent. europe would not allow other foreigners to do this in europe. why would the africans allow this? they should not allow foreigners who colonized the bus and insulate us in the past to do this. these are our enemies. what is the true motive of the french for coming into mali? it is certainly not because they care. they are former colonial masters, people that enslaved us. these are our enemies. what is the reason they have come? certainly not because they care. guest: i think we are in agreement that most people -- the u.s. administration, the state department has noted in a statement that general ham said earlier also, everybody would like this to be an african-led solution. it's the only way to go ahead. unfortunately, although many of the african countries talk a great deal about getting involved, with the exception of a few. niger, i mentioned earlier. morocco has been leading on this, raising awareness on this issue for some time. mali, a year-and-a
this rebalancing even as we continue to work closely, closely with our longtime allies of nato and our friends and with allies and partners and friends of other regions of the world. at the same time, we will continue to focus on challenges in the middle east and north africa where were have clear national interests. rather, it's a recognition that the united states has been and always will be a pacific power. and the asia-pacific is vital to america's interests. doing all of this, and much more, will require smart and strategic budget decisions. i have made it clear, i share leon panetta's and our service chief's serious concerns about the impact sequestration would have on our armed forces. and as someone who has run businesses i know that the uncertainty and turbulence of the current budget climate makes it much more difficult to manage the pentagon's resources in our national security. if confirmed i'm committed to effectively and efficiently using every single taxpayer's dollar the right way. to maintenance the strongest military in the world and to working with congress to ensure the dep
-time allies of nato, and our friend, and with allies and partners and friends in other raoegs of th region -gs of the world. at the same time we will focus on challenges in the middle east and north africa where we have clear national interests. it's a recognition that the united states has been and always will be a pacific power. in the asian make of area, it's increasingly vital to america's security and economic interest, that's why we must become even more engaged in the region over the coming years. doing all this and much more will require smart and stra taoepblg is budget decisions. i have made it clear i share pan pan's and our service chief's serious concerns about the impact sequestration would have on our armed forces. as someone who has run businesses i know that the uncertainty and turbulence of the current budget climate makes it much more difficult to manage the pentagon's resources and our national security. if confirmed i'm committed to effectively and efficiently, using every single taxpayers' dollar the right way to maintain the strongest military in the world, and to workin
longtime allies of nato and our friends and with allies and partners and friends in other regions of the world. at the same time we'll continue to focus on challenges in the middle east and north africa where we have clear national interests. rather as a recognition that the united states has been and always will be a pacific power. in the asia pacific area is increasingly vital to america's security and economic interests. that's why we must become even more engaged in the region over the incoming years. during all of this and much more will require smart and strategic budget decisions. i have made it clear i'm sure leon panetta and the concerns of the impact just ration will have on our armed forces. as someone who has run businesses, i know that the uncertainty and turbulence of the current budget climate makes it much more difficult to manage the pentagon's resources and our national security. if confirmed i'm committed to effectively and efficiently using every single taxpayers' dollars the right way, to maintain the strongest military in the world and to working with congres
with india. i could go on and on and on. nato expansion. all of the things we now take for granted were not initiatives of the clinton administration, they were initiatives of members of congress here on capitol hill who changed the world in a very meaningful way. and that is still an opportunity if only we recognize that it's something that we need to care about. sorry for my little speech, but you have two former capitol hill staffers here, so -- >> hi -- [inaudible] general question, how do we know when we've won? like with regard to the kind of counterterrorism, "zero dark thirty" movement. is there, like, a metric? how is -- does there -- >> repeat the question. the question is how do we know when we've won? >> don't worry about it. [laughter] we're in no danger of winning anytime soon. [laughter] this is, this has become a shib list because -- it's a fair question, obviously, what's your measure for success and how do we know when we've p stopped or when we can p sop. when we can stop. but we are so far away from that now, and we're further away from that now than when this presid
to the placement of pay ttriot missiles. >> reporter: the turkish government asked nato to place the missiles along the border of syria to deter any threat of the ballistic attacks, but the turkish group opposed them to operate the patriots. friday's suicide bombing was not the first time that western diplomatic areas have been attacked in turkey. in 1993 al qaeda killed scores of people as well as the consko late. and in istanbul six people were killed there as people fought to protect the building. the security measures work. twice in six years attackers have failed to break into u.s. diplomatic missions in turkey, but that is due in large part to turkish guards who lost their lives as the first line of protection. wolf? >> ivan watson, thank you. let's get a closer look at the united states embassy right now, and cnn's tom foreman is joining us. tom, show us how the em embassy is laid out in ankara. >> well, ankara is the second largest city in turkey, and the capital, and if you take the largest metro area, it is home of the government, and the u.s. embassy in the middle of everything with the
. the president moved and decided he was going to become engaged to nato in ways that met our interests at the time it got the job done. i thought it was smart. the way he approached that was very effective and the results were exactly what we wanted to cheat. -- achieve. we could tell if we did this -- results were exactly what we wanted to achieve. we recommended no-fly. those things were put into place. i think the american people approved of the way that was handled. we had just come out of iraq. the aftermath of all of these places, we need to spend some time on this. there is a monumental transformation taking place. this is the biggest upheaval of the bill that part of the world -- in that part of the world since the ottoman empire. many of the country's -- countries lines were drawn in relatively arbitrary ways. people were put in places of power. it is a highly sectarian, divided, tribal part of the world. i am not sure every policy has always been as sensitive or thoughtful about that as it ought to be. >> i want to clarify. on my state about libya, i was -- statement about li
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 52 (some duplicates have been removed)